S. K. Dhaon, D. S. Sinha, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner was elected as the Pramukh of Kshetra Samiti, Maitha Shri Krishna Pal Singh, respondent No. 2 preferred an election petition No. 3 of 1988 challenging the election of the petitioner. This petition came to the file of Sixth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, for trial. The learned Additional Judge framed issues. One of the issues was issue No. 5. The petitioner made an application stating therein that issue No. 5 may be struck off. By the same application he also prayed that an additional issue may be framed. The additional issue was to the effect as to whether certain allegations made by the Respondent No. 2 in the election petition are liable to be struck off or not. The application was rejected in its entirety. The order passed on the application is being impugned in the present petition.
(2.) Shri P. S. Tripathi, learned counsel has stated at the bar that he does not press the relief in so far as it relates to the prayer for framing of additional issue. We make it clear that this concession by the petitioner will not preclude him from pressing before the learned Additional District Judge to strike off the alleged offending paragraphs of the election petition.
(3.) Learned counsel has vehemently urged that the petitioner will be prejudiced if the learned Additional District Judge is allowed to adjudicate upon the issue No. 5 as framed by him. In substance, the issue No. 5 is as to whether the petitioner was on the relevant date an elected member of the Kshettra SamiJji Maitha. According to the petitioner, he was a member of the Kshettra Samiti because he had been duly elected as the Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, and, therefore, by virtue of that office he became ex-officio member of the Kshettra Samiti. It has been brought to our notice that the election of the petitioner as Pradhan is under challenge in proceedings under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Learned counsel has urged that if this issue No. 5 is put to trial the validity of the election of the petitioner as Pradhan will necessarily have to be gone into at the instance of the respondent No. 1. In our opinion, the petitioner is misinterpreting and misconstruing the import of issue No. 5. Issue No. 5 merely makes an enquiry as to whether on the relevant date the petitioner was a member of the Keshttra Samiti or not. So far as this controversy is concerned, the petitioner has to merely prove that, in fact, he was a member of the Kshettra Samiti on the relevant date. Moreover, it will be open to the petitioner to place before the learned Judge the provisions of Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act which say that the election of a person as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. We have no doubt that the learned Additional District Judge will keep the relevant law in mind. We, therefore find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge. There is yet another reason for not interfering with the impugned order. After all the impugned order is merely an interlocutory order and this is a relevant ground for not quashing the impugned order.;